Author
Topic: "Gameplay" Nonsense (Read 3977 times)

I never understood this "gameplay" nonsense. The objective of any contest or "game" (at least the ones I'm aware of) is to win. Period. "Yeah, the Cowboys beat the Steelers 49-0, but their 'gameplay' or 'strategy' wasn't up to snuff. The Steelers 'deserved' it more". Give me a break. A successful strategy is a winning strategy. If your "strategy" doesn't lead you towards the results you seek, you've got some strategic problems.

As other previous BB winners have stated numerous times, lying and scheming should *only* be done when absolutely necessary. People too often confuse scheming and lying with "strategy". Those words are not synonymous. Lying and scheming is *a* strategy, yes. It is not the ONLY strategic choice however. And it's no more valid than "laying low" or "flying under the radar" or any of the other BB strategies.

In fact, lying and scheming is arguably the dumbest and most risky strategy. Don't believe me? Ask Ronnie, Russell and Michelle how well scheming and lying worked for them.

I'm sick of reading about how lying and scheming is what BB is all about. That, in itself, is a lie. It's about making it to the end and winning $500,000. Whichever houseguest accomplishes that goal (regardless of how they accomplish it, provided they stay within the rules) is 100% deserving of the prize money.

I agree Spungo, and I like to call all the lying and cheating "desperation play." I feel it is better to come out of a game like this with your self-respect and dignity.

It occurs to me that even Dan didn't get to the end without lying and scheming. He certainly made an alliance with Memphis and lied to Keesha. He certainly got Memphis to do the dirty job of getting rid of Keesha. I think there is a degree of lying in every BB game. What annoys me more is using a woman to get to the end then dumping her with the excuse if she went to the final 2 she would win. Big Brother is not a nice game.

I do agree though, I'd rather have my self respect and dignity intact coming out of the house the same as the day I walked in.

I don't think it would be possible for me to walk in and out with the same amount of integrity. It would be impossible for me to form allies and one by one, eliminate them with my chin up. The point of the game is to be the last two standing and have enough "game" that the jury house votes for you. Evil Dick, Will, etc - "the game" wins over friendly EVERY TIME. Laying low is not synonymous with friendly. I agree that you should not show your hand before it's time. Why draw attention to yourself? When the time comes, nobody knows who you are or where your loyalties lie. But like Michelle, when she came out, she came out strong - voting Jessie out, putting up Chima. She won my admiration and the ire of those who had already chosen others to admire. Every HG has good and bad attributes, but that is why BB draws us in year after year. Too strong, too fast, too manipulative, too I agree with Spungo, the right strategy is the one that leaves you with $500,000!

Of course lying and scheming doesn't work. You have to also have diplomatic skills to deflect the fact that you lie and scheme. If you nail somebody, you have to do as much work as you can to keep them and their associates liking you. Big blowhards become targets, like Chill Town in season 2, or are blind to what they need to do, like Howie.

But most of all, the sports analogy breaks down here because of the way luck enters. If the Steelers have bad luck and a Troy Polamalu gets injured, that's a bad break, but in the long run it becomes another test of how well their organization planned for adversity by developing their bench. The Steelers have more than a dozen total contests to prove themselves.

Big Brother is entirely different because it has a lot more luck. The best possible team is two people who mow down everyone to get to the final two and win the entire purse. No matter how you slice it, though, those two people will eventually reach a final three where the third wheel can, by pure luck, limp into a spot in the final two. The final HOH is too much of a random factor. That means the best strategy a 2-person team can have is to work their way to a final three position where they have a 67% chance of winning. But even if you get there, you have a 33% chance of Lady Luck taking you down.

Poker makes a better analogy to Big Brother. You can only play the odds, plus the best players excel at reading other players. In the long run, the best players always win. But even in his best days one sour turn at the river would lose Oil Brunson even the best played hand, maybe on occasion the tournament. In Big Brother, there is no long run, no re-shuffle with another play at the odds. The best players can always play really well, but then have a sour turn at the final HOH and lose the whole enchilada to luck. The best players know they're working within that limitation. So there is a real difference between judging someone on their gameplay and voting based on personal distaste for one of your equals on the playing field.